The Daily Telegraph - 23.08.2019

A

h the gleaming promise of those

seemingly lucrative emerging

markets, with their fast-growing

economies and rapidly expanding

middle classes. For business and

finance, they seemed like manna from

heaven amid the torpid stagnation of

the West. Collectively known as the

Brics, this spectacular development

story – led by China – promised a

whole new world that would

eventually eclipse the old one.

There at the centre of it all, as a

gateway to China’s seemingly

boundless opportunity, lay Hong Kong,

with its “one country, two systems”

status, an apparently perfect marriage

of Western values and Chinese access.

What more could you want?

Recent events have brought a sharp

reality check. Whether it is even

possible for Western firms to conduct

meaningful business in China must be

increasingly open to question, but in

any case, there is a clear message that

has emerged for global multinationals

from the destruction of Hong Kong’s

protest movement; either kowtow to

Beijing, or vote with your feet and run.

Li Ka-Shing, the veteran Hong Kong

magnate, seems already to have made

up his mind. Taking advantage of the

cheap pound, he this week launched a

£4.6 billion bid for Britain’s biggest

listed pubs group, Greene King,

marking a further diversification away

from the place that spawned his riches.

Yet those that already straddle East

and West have very little choice other

than to buckle under. Dealing with

geo-political complexity is part of their

meat and drink. Without apparent

exception, the great “Hongs”, or

trading houses, of the former British

colony have fallen into line by

condemning “illegal” acts of defiance

by protesters, and in effect urged

surrender. The big accounting houses

have been similarly apologetic for

employees involved in the protest

movement.

Already Chinese opprobrium has

claimed two notable scalps – the chief

executives of both Cathay Pacific and

HSBC. Cathay Pacific’s chief executive,

Rupert Hogg, was summarily sacked

via Chinese state-owned media, which

disclosed the ejection before the

company had a chance to announce it,

for notionally putting security and

safety at risk in allowing employees to

participate in the protests.

Though HSBC denies pressure from

Beijing, its chief executive of just 18

months standing, John Flint, met a

similar fate. The press release

announcing his departure suggested

that he was simply not up to the job of

managing an “increasingly complex

and challenging global environment”.

HSBC’s involvement in the detention in

Canada on extradition charges of

Huawei’s finance director, Meng

Wanzhou, hints at a more specific

failing.

With more than half of its profits in

Hong Kong and China, and a large slab

of the remainder in the US, HSBC is

right there in the front line of the US’s

standoff with China, classically caught

between a rock and a hard place.

That HSBC had no choice in the

matter, and was pretty much obliged

to provide the evidence the US needed

to mount its extradition case against

China’s star telecoms company, didn’t

prevent a furious response from the

Chinese authorities.

Ever since being heavily fined in the

US for alleged money laundering,

HSBC has had a whole team of

Department of Justice officials

embedded in its operations to ensure

no further mischief. It was therefore

easy for the US to know about and

subpoena the required information.

Compliance was also no doubt ensured

by the usual bully-boy threat of

removal of HSBC’s dollar-clearing

licence, without which the bank

would be out of business. Pressure

from Beijing or not, Flint has paid the

price for Trump’s war on Huawei.

Global business cannot afford to

take political stances; it must bend

with the wind, acting in full

compliance with the laws of all the

jurisdictions it operates in, and hope

Can Western firms still do business in China?

The Hong Kong crisis

poses a tough choice to

multinationals: kowtow to

Beijing or cut your losses

jeremy

warner

R

emainers thought there was no point

in the Prime Minister meeting

individual EU leaders to debate the

Withdrawal Agreement. The EU only

does things through official channels,

they said, and it wouldn’t budge on

the backstop. And yet both Angela Merkel and

Emmanuel Macron have now told Boris Johnson

that the Agreement could be amended to avoid a

no-deal Brexit. What this translates into we have

yet to see and, of course, everyone is acting

reasonably to impress their domestic audiences.

But Mr Johnson’s diplomacy has created fresh

hope, and that changes things back home.

Some MPs have spent the summer plotting to

bring Mr Johnson down on the grounds that he has

accelerated the planning for a no-deal Brexit. The

possibility of Britain leaving without an agreement

on October 31 provides the rationale for plots

ranging from triggering an election to installing

Jeremy Corbyn as a caretaker prime minister – even

though Mr Johnson has always insisted that he

doesn’t actually want to leave without a deal. On the

contrary, he believes that turning a no-deal Brexit

into a credible threat is the only way to get the EU to

offer Britain a decent withdrawal package. If only

Theresa May had taken such preparations seriously

two years ago, we might have been offered a better

deal sooner and Britain could already be out.

Nevertheless, so long as the Europeans ruled out

any renegotiation then Mr Johnson’s no-deal

preparations could be spun by Remainers as a

dangerous gamble. If, however, it turns out that

the Agreement can be amended, that takes the

wind out of the Remain campaign in Parliament.

The excuse for bringing down the Government is

to prevent a no-deal Brexit, but if a new deal is

suddenly on the cards then there is no point in

drastic action. In fact, nobbling your Government

mid-negotiation looks decidedly unpatriotic.

Remainers will insist that far too much is being

read into what Mr Macron and Ms Merkel have said.

Were that true, it would be the Remain campaign’s

fault for driving expectations so low. Having told us

for weeks that nothing is possible, when something

does happen, no matter how small, it looks like a

breakthrough. Mr Johnson’s critics continue to

underestimate him. His handling of EU leaders has

been polished, and given that Brexiteers are

parodied as ignorant and parochial, it is particularly

satisfying to have a Leaver Prime Minister who

speaks fluent French.

Mr Johnson’s critics

underestimate him

L

anes for zombie-walking mobile-phone users

have been painted on an alley between offices

in Manchester as a publicity stunt by an

online company. The irony is that the site is called

Hardman Boulevard. To have a boulevard by the

river Irwell is not as absurd now as a generation

ago, when the words of Ewan MacColl’s Dirty Old

To wn still applied to both banks of this urban

waterway. The French boulevardiers first practised

their urbane art not on wide avenues (designed to

keep the uppity populace in the line of fire), but on

promenades following the course of demolished

ramparts. In neither case did they lounge in a

draughty chasm between the RBS and NCC cyber

security. But it is the ideal sheltered territory for

stumbling phone addicts. All they need is a fielder

at the end to stop them splashing into the river.

Zombie boulevardiers

C

ongratulations are due to those who got the

GCSE grades they wanted, especially to the

Michaela Community School in Brent,

London. Its results are four times better than the

national average. This free school insists on rules

that a few generations ago were considered

everyday: silence in the corridor, moving in single

file, no eye-rolling, penalties for scruffy work and

detention for being late. This “zero tolerance”

approach helps shape the sort of ethic that wealthy

parents will pay for by sending their children to

independent schools. It builds character. It creates

an environment for learning. And it helps the

poorest the most by providing a structure that can

otherwise be missing in their lives.

The question is, how did doing the obvious in

schools become controversial? Sadly, education in

Britain has been captured by a Left-wing cabal that

prefers equality over achievement and free

expression over self-discipline. The fruits were

found in exams deliberately made easier for

children, providing results that universities and

employers didn’t quite trust. The Tories have

worked hard to correct this, and one commendable

experiment has been the free school movement

that has allowed brave teachers like Katharine

Birbalsingh, Michaela’s dynamic headmistress, to

do things that in the state system had become

mysteriously unpopular.

It would make sense to learn from Michaela’s

best practice and emulate it, but there will be

tremendous resistance. The Left claims to stand for

the poor and the weak. It doesn’t. Whether it be

destroying the economy with socialism or ruining

schools with laxity, it always ends up promoting

the miserable equality of greater poverty.

Michaela’s triumph

ESTABLISHED 1855

that by facilitating trade it can bring

potentially warring nations closer

together. For the moment, it is proving

an almost impossibly difficult

balancing act. For business, pressure

to take sides, to choose one orbit over

another, has rarely been greater.

If it ever came to it, Britain and its

companies would, I suppose, have to

opt for Trump’s embrace over that of

China, Europe having already been

rejected. Trump’s values may not be

our own, but America’s very much are

and will always be infinitely preferable

to China’s authoritarian ways. If forced

to take sides, there can be no contest.

But maybe it won’t come to that.

American presidents come and go.

Less than four years ago, the US was

still officially meant to be pivoting

towards Asia. The trade war with

China is a very recent thing; it is as yet

by no means certain that Trump has

brought about a permanent change.

He and his China policies could be

gone in little more than a year’s time.

Yet whatever the future holds, it

would be a tragedy if Britain was made

to burn its bridges with China’s growth

opportunities for the constraints of a

protectionist America. Like HSBC, the

trick is to be able to stroke both the

unpredictable Trump and the Chinese

dragon. We can but hope it’s still

possible.

We accept letters

by post, fax and

email only. Please

include name,

address, work and

home telephone

numbers.

111 Buckingham

Palace Road,

London

SW1W 0DT

fax

020 7931 2878

email

dtletters@

telegraph.co.uk

follow

Telegraph Letters

on Twitter

@LettersDesk

follow Jeremy Warner on Twitter

@jeremywarneruk; read more at

telegraph.co.uk/opinion

Letters to the Editor

sir – The Irish “backstop” is a colossal

red herring and does not merit the

attention it is being given.

Ireland is the only net EU importer

of British goods, at some £25 billion,

and has an insignificant capacity to

export direct to Europe or elsewhere

via air or sea. Most of its exports use

the land bridge across Britain to reach

European destinations and nothing

could replace this in the short term.

There is, however, considerable

mutual trade and movement of goods

across the border with Northern

Ireland. Let trade continue as it is,

with agreement that constant review

will identify any truly relevant level of

“smuggling” and/or breach of EU

standards. That is most unlikely, given

the requirements of customers within

the EU and the amount of data

attached to goods as a matter of

necessary business procedure.

The Irish government must wake up

to the fact that it is being made

Brussels’ puppet, to its ultimate

disadvantage. We should also remind

Europe that it is in its best interest to

ensure that its goods move freely into

Britain and that its lorries can return

unhindered to the Continent.

David O’Brien

Hove, East Sussex

sir – Neither the British nor the Irish

governments want a hard border, and

multiple experts have confirmed that a

soft border for goods can be

maintained without Britain belonging

to an EU customs union.

The EU was able to bully Theresa

May’s administration into swallowing

the backstop, but now that we have a

Government that believes in Brexit the

EU should reconsider its position. If it

won’t, the EU will be responsible for

any economic fallout after a no-deal.

Gregory Shenkman

London W

sir – The volume and nature of trade

across the Irish border and to the rest

of the UK is such that, at least for the

time being, the well-tried technology

of number-plate recognition, and

digital manifests and invoicing, will

cover all we need, perhaps backed up

by spot checks at destinations.

If Mr Johnson fails to achieve a

clean exit from the EU, the Brexit Party

will continue to take votes from the

Conservatives, and Jeremy Corbyn

will end up in Downing Street.

Stephen Garner

Colchester, Essex

sir – I hope that Allister Heath is right

(Comment, August 22), but Boris

Johnson’s emphasis on the backstop as

almost the only obstacle to a deal is

worrying. As is his reported comment

to Emmanuel Macron that a deal can

be reached in 30 days “without

reshuffling the present one”.

I understand that he has to play to

several galleries at once, but until his

policy is crystal clear and we are out

on October 31, Brexiteers will keep

their voting options open. Only at that

point should a purged Tory party be

given a clear run.

Professor Alan Sked

London School of Economics

London WC

Britain must not cave in to the EU’s bullying over the Irish backstop Reviewing HS

sir – I welcome the Government’s

review of HS2, but can’t help feeling

that it is just a cynical ploy to kick the

subject to the other side of a snap

election.

If this were a realistic review, the

current wholesale destruction of the

English countryside would be stopped

until its findings are published. As it is,

thousands of trees – some of them

mine – and ancient woodland are

being destroyed in a wanton orgy of

scorched earth to make the project

unstoppable.

As most of the current expenditure

has been the purchase of property at

knock-down prices – mostly not even

fully paid for as HS2 claims to “have no

process for paying people” – if the

project is stopped the resale of the

taken land could even make a profit.

Clive Higgins

Steeple Claydon, Buckinghamshire

sir – Surely the enormous cost of HS

is intended to provide faster travel for

business commuters between cities.

Would it not be better to spend the

money on faster nationwide digital

services, and more local industry and

business development incentives, so

avoiding the need for people to travel?

Mike Edmond

Hoarwithy, Herefordshire

sir – Much of the expense incurred by

HS2 is down to the construction of the

tunnels and cuttings needed to reduce

the noise levels of high-speed trains.

Costs could be cut if trains stuck to the

current top speed. Journey times would

increase slightly, but badly needed

extra capacity would be retained.

The project should definitely not be

scrapped; apart from increasing

passenger numbers, freight will

always have to be carried and the

carbon footprint of a railway is far

lower than shifting comparable

amounts by road.

Alan Duncalf

Bampton, Devon

sir – I recently travelled from London

to Brussels in just over two hours via

the Channel Tunnel. En route, I

travelled at 186mph yet my UK rail

speed peaked at 125mph.

It is absurd that London has

high-speed trains to Paris, Brussels

and Amsterdam but plans for faster

lines within Britain cause protest.

Cancelling HS2 at this stage will make

us a laughing stock.

Better trans-Pennine rail links and

more electrification are needed, but if

HS2 is cancelled the money will not be

reallocated to unplanned transport

projects. More rail capacity is essential

and that can only come through HS2.

Roger Backhouse

York

Overmedicating

sir – The report on overmedicating the

elderly (August 22) suggests that those

taking multiple pills died younger than

those who took none or few. Is that not

stating the blooming obvious?

GPs do not prescribe for the sake of

it and “deprescribing” is increasingly

undertaken at patients’ regular

medication reviews. Why do these

patients do less well? I would say it is

because they have more wrong with

them – hence the medications.

Dr Peter Swinyard

Chairman, Family Doctor Association

Heywood, Lancashire

Tipped to fail

sir – Sir Michael Ferguson Davie

wonders why the BBC broadcasts daily

racing tips (Letters, August 21).

I rather suspect that if punters

followed the tips they would soon give

up gambling.

David Brown

Lavenham, Suffolk

Metal matters

sir – Historic England understands the

trauma and cost of metal theft to local

communities (Letters, August 22). We

appreciate that places of worship are

managed and funded by volunteers,

and that dealing with the aftermath of

theft can be very frustrating.

We advise that lead is the most

appropriate roof covering. However,

where it has been stolen from church

buildings and like-for-like

replacement would risk further

criminal activity, we support the use of

long-lasting alternative materials.

The preferred option is usually

terne-coated stainless steel, since it is

unattractive to thieves and, if fitted to

the correct specification by skilled

craftspeople, will enable the continued

use of the building for decades. Our

priority is the long-term health of the

building and the ability of those who

are responsible for it to maintain it

with as little extra cost as possible.

Duncan McCallum

Strateg y and Listing Director

Historic England

London EC

sir – Peter Butterfield (Letters, August

22) asks who buys stolen lead, as

dealers are “meant to be controlled”.

The problem is the Scrap Metal

Dealers Act 2013: dealers have to

record transactions but not ascertain

the source. Less scrupulous dealers are

thus able to turn a blind eye.

Peter Saunders

Salisbury, Wiltshire

sir – I wonder how many people

realise when they marvel at the beauty

of St James’s Church in Piccadilly, built

by Christopher Wren, that the

clock-tower, spire and weather vane

are all glass-fibre replicas built in 1968.

The church suffered bomb damage

in 1940 and was mostly restored

between 1947 and 1954, then the

project ran out of funds. The 1686

steeple (not designed by Wren) was

replaced with help from above when it

was put in place by a helicopter.

Nicholas Young

London W

Strained explanation

sir – At Sainsbury’s recently, my wife

and I were speaking to a pleasant

young chap manning the checkout.

When he came to a packet of loose

tea he asked us what it was. We had to

explain the traditional way of making

tea twice, but finally the light of

understanding shone from his face.

“Oh, I see,” he said. “You have to put

the leaves in the little bags yourself.”

Peter Pascall

Manchester

Boxing clever: converted shipping containers piled high at Trinity Buoy Wharf in London

ALAMY

SIR – I am amazed at the negative

attitudes towards the converted

shipping containers being used to

shelter homeless families (report,

August 21).

In the footage on television they

looked small but well appointed. I

think a lot of people would be very

pleased to be offered a space of their

own that is probably larger than a

caravan and almost as big as a

post-war prefab.

Rona Taylor

Bristol

SIR – After the Second World War,

hundreds of prefabs were built to

house families whose homes had

been destroyed by enemy action.

They were meant to last 10 years

but families were still happily living

in them 50 years later. Couldn’t this

type of building be used again?

Vera Burrell

Sudbury, Suffolk

SIR – The British Army, while in

Banja Luka, Bosnia, was housed in

its entirety in shipping containers in

a derelict factory.

Caroline Charles-Jones

Newport, Monmouthshire

You could do worse than a shipping container

sir – It is impossible to have a carbon-

neutral flight (report, August 20).

The purpose of this idea is to ease

the consciences of the wealthy who

are not prepared to make the changes

to their lifestyles that they exhort the

rest of us to adopt.

Robert Readman

Bournemouth, Dorset

sir – You report (August 20) that Sir

Elton John, having made “an

appropriate contribution” to a

company that specialises in offsetting

carbon emissions, is satisfied that the

trip made by the Duke and Duchess of

Sussex in his jet was carbon-neutral.

I’m not sure what foundation in

science the theory of carbon offsetting

has, but I can understand the

attraction of paying to mitigate the

impact of one’s indulgences. And

perhaps, in this case, “indulgences” is

a particularly appropriate word to use.

Tom Blackett

Shepperton, Surrey

sir – I have examined the carbon

calculator that Sir Elton used. It shows

that I can offset a whole year’s mileage

of my eight-year-old Land Rover for

just under £46. 

Why, then, is the Government

charging me a penalty tax rate of £

on the basis of the car’s emissions?

Ian Robertson

Hook, Hampshire

sir – I would liken Sir Elton’s efforts to

offset carbon emissions to a burglar

breaking in to my house, then

returning all he’d stolen. Not quite the

same as if he’d not broken in at all.

Money doesn’t buy everything.

Anthony Hall

Swansea

There’s no such thing as a carbon-neutral flight

The Daily Telegraph Friday 23 August 2019 *** 19

RELEASED BY "What's News" VK.COM/WSNWS TELEGRAM: t.me/whatsnws